ABC News reports that President Barack Obama has turned to Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) to fill the vacant cabinet post at the Department of Health and Human Services.

If confirmed, Sebelius will become the third member of the Obama cabinet with past ties to video game legislation. The others are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Commerce nominee Gary Locke.

As Governor in 2006, Sebelius pushed an unsuccessful attempt to legislate video games, saying at the time, "Video games and music lyrics promote violence..."

Ironically, in 2008 it was revealed that her son created a Grand Theft Auto-like board game and was marketing it by mail order from the Governor's official residence. At the time, Gov. Sebelius commented that she was proud of her son's creativity.

Comments

1. Except the murder rates will not decline as well. Look at England. I was there working at the Peele Center for 2 weeks, and heard about 52 knife murders in one small area in London.

4. This ban changes far too much, and the real problem is that the things it changes are pointless and will only serve to increase crime.

6. Indeed, the Contras were US trained, but they've fallen into a state of not so much disrepair as being unpracticed. When they had US backing (unofficial as it was), they had the ammunition to expend for good weapons training. Now? Not so much. The VAST majority of gunmen working for a drug cartel are less trained then an average US Basic Training graduate. They're basically thugs that were given a smuggled AK or MAC-10 and told to go shoot someone. Because they're so cheaply trained, it's no loss when a team of 4 is caught or killed.

7: But you still, as a country, would have to decide what to deal with in what order. Even harassing them a bit each year would slow their ascent to power like they have now.

PS: You can buy a grenade launcher (class 3, requires a tax stamp). You can't buy the grenades. you CAN buy dummy grenades for the 40MM (the launcher often found slung under an M16) or you can find flares for the 37MM launcher. The 37MM launcher also has a strange item called a 'hornets nest', basically a dummy grenade that will fire a few .22s. Highly impractical, it's almost like a toy. You can't buy rounds that can actually explode. Occasionally, one can acquire some smoke grenade rounds, or some gas rounds (VERY rarely), but often the ATF will turn those away from private ownership.

1. Except the murder rates will not decline as well. Look at England. I was there working at the Peele Center for 2 weeks, and heard about 52 knife murders in one small area in London.

4. This ban changes far too much, and the real problem is that the things it changes are pointless and will only serve to increase crime.

6. Indeed, the Contras were US trained, but they've fallen into a state of not so much disrepair as being unpracticed. When they had US backing (unofficial as it was), they had the ammunition to expend for good weapons training. Now? Not so much. The VAST majority of gunmen working for a drug cartel are less trained then an average US Basic Training graduate. They're basically thugs that were given a smuggled AK or MAC-10 and told to go shoot someone. Because they're so cheaply trained, it's no loss when a team of 4 is caught or killed.

7: But you still, as a country, would have to decide what to deal with in what order. Even harassing them a bit each year would slow their ascent to power like they have now.

PS: You can buy a grenade launcher (class 3, requires a tax stamp). You can't buy the grenades. you CAN buy dummy grenades for the 40MM (the launcher often found slung under an M16) or you can find flares for the 37MM launcher. The 37MM launcher also has a strange item called a 'hornets nest', basically a dummy grenade that will fire a few .22s. Highly impractical, it's almost like a toy. You can't buy rounds that can actually explode. Occasionally, one can acquire some smoke grenade rounds, or some gas rounds (VERY rarely), but often the ATF will turn those away from private ownership.

4. I don't agree with the increasing crime part, but you've made it obvious that this ban would serve no purpose.

6 & 7: Both may be true. But it's also true that in a asymmetrical conflict like this the mafia has a huge advantage. The government is always on the defense. Even if the government is better armed and trained, it still doesn't matter much. You can't just "sweep" them out of there. And the mafia targets everyone. They managed to do away with a police chief by killing a cop every 24 hours he was in office.

4. Even if you don't agree with the increasing crime part, the important thing to note about this ban is that it does serve no purpose. In America, 'Assault Rifles' are used in less than .6% of police murders (this also has to do with the 'cop killing bullet' bullshit). What that means is that a police officer is TWICE as likely to be shot to death with his own gun than an 'AR'. The REAL reason that these firearms are on that list is because of the way they look.

6&7: Indeed, the government will have to be on the defense. But if they were to bring in foreign troops or a contractor group (Blackwater, ie), they wouldn't have to be. True, you can't sweep them out, but you can annihilate the top few echelons of leadership and the cartel will be done. Most of the time, after you're two or three tiers down from the head(s) of the cartel, you're at the point where these people don't have the know-how to band together. The fact that they were able to do away with that police chief by killing his men means that they may need some outside help, and American help isn't as likely to bow to threats, especially not contractors.

Chopping the head of a gang won't make it go away, it will make the remaining underlings more violent in an effort to prove themselves. The amateurs who take over will generally fight more, with other gangs or law enforcement. The opposite was done in Sicily when prefect Mori cleaned the island. He destroyed the mafia by putting every underling (and the mid-level bosses) behind bars or in front of a firing squad. In a democratic regime this is not very viable. It was rather effective though. The mafia only revived because the US troops allowed the rebuilding of the organisation as a means of taking sicily without fighting (not an bad tactic).

As for contractors not bowing down. They may not, but if the cartels kill a cop every day the government will have to back down those contractors. I still say this will be a hard long war that won't go away with an fast solution.

So DISARMING American citizens is for our own safety. You know, I think Stalin and Hitler and Mao said that too, actually.

Another dictator who said that: Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillippines. In fact, when Marcos took power there, because of the Phillippines' registration laws(knowing who had guns and who didn't), he told the entire country to turn in their firearms within two weeks or face the death penalty.

As Jesse Ventura says in "Do I Stand Alone?", But until we find a way to eliminate the need to protect ourselves, we'd better be thankful to the Founding Fathers for being smart enough to give us the Second Amendment, and be smart enough ourselves to see that it's upheld.

And those countries have higher crime rates than the U.S.(except for maybe Japan).

It's important because by making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally own guns, it causes the people to be unequally armed: More guns in the hands of criminals instead of in the hands of law-abiding citizens(to protect themselves and to protect others).

About your second argument, I, and many with me, am perfectly okay with guns only being in the hands of criminals. First of, criminals don't just randomly shoot people on the street (in Western countries anyway) and if they did, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself anyway. Secondly, the police also has weapons. They fight crime so we won't have to. And looking at those murderrates, I feel pretty confident about strict gun laws.

You're okay with only criminals having guns? I'm sorry, but that sentence just downright disgusted me and I just have to comment on this. You may be okay with rapists and burglars having their way with you, but I'm not.

If somebody is breaking into my house and he's A&D (be it knife, club, or gun), I'm not just going to cower in the shadows and hope a phone's nearby, I'm going to let him know he picked the wrong house to loot. If I have a loved one who encounters a rapist, I'd rather them be able to actually fight back and really say "no." I don't know hw your logic works, but I believe innocent law-abiders shouldn't have to put up with a crook's shenanigans.

Yes, we have an armed police force, but they aren't always going to be there to hold your hand. Call 911? Sure, they'll show, but by then the crook has already gotten what they want and is long gone, and in a large city, finding them again is nigh impossible.

I was robbed in the past. Like you, I relied on the police to help. But because the crime occurred in a large city, that person was never caught and wasn't exactly a high priority on the list. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let myself become helpless and vulnerable again...

Of course I'm not okay with criminals having guns, I'm okay with criminals having guns while law-abiding citizens do not. I have seen enough violence that would only be much, much worse with the addition of guns, whether those guns are in the hands of the attacking or the defending party. I don't cower in the corner when burglars are in my house, I first call the police (my phone is always nearby) and then I'd wait, my possesions can be replaced. If someone tried to rape me (unlikely scenario) I'd fight them off. I certainly wouldn't carry a gun everywhere. Besides, this really does mean you have to carry a gun (which means you won't get into clubs) all the time, because Break-in rapes are rare.

If you're okay with only criminals having guns, that's fine. DONT BUY ONE. Don't try and limit my rights because you're uncomfortable. Criminals, contrary to your belief, DO shoot people on the street in Western Countries, and yes, a person can defend themself anyway. What about the 70 year old Marine Vet who defended himself against two robbers in a subway? Concealed Carry Permit holders stop around 2 million crimes a year.

The police are also poorly trained with weapons, and they don't HAVE to help you. I know, you may be dumb enough to assume they're going to save you, but as a doctor of Criminology I can tell you they often arrive after you and your friends or family are deceased. If you don't want to protect yourself, fine, but I choose to.

I should clarify: shooting random people in the street versus a crime with some kind of purpose. I know victims of robberies. They feel horrible and I probably shouldn't be let alone in a room with the perpatrators, but I also know that they did not want their robbery to turn into a fire fight. Also I need a trustworthy source for that statistic (NOT the NRA).

Which police are poorly trained with weapons? overgeneralisation. As a doctor of criminology, you see the victims, which are exactly that. You can't prepare for every situation. As for rights, well that is another story. I understand you can't outlaw guns in the US, but guns are hardly a human right.

Crime rates maybe, I wouldn't know, but have you looked at the murder rates (per capita of course)? The USA is number 24 (of the countries which can give reliable rates), and let me tell you, the strict gun law-democratic countries don't have higher murder rates.

Of course, they also don't have the same population, many don't have the same diversity of population, etc. The real point is that when firearms are taken from law abiding citizens, all crime rates go up. Look at Australia, England, etc. Then look at Switzerland, a country where everyone has an 'assault weapon', and look at its violent crime rate.

Switzerland also has very strict gun laws, not in ownership, but in carrying. Add to that the fact that the Swiss practicly invented the vault, there wouldn't be much of a problem there. Then there is the fact that Switzerland has a tiny number of cities, most people live in small villages. Switzerland is a rather unique situation in all.

As for Australia and the UK, the NRA said that crime rates have gone up. Not true. The NRA are a bunch of liars. Classic Rovian tactics: http://www.guninformation.org/

Indeed, Switzerland is unique. They also have forced military service and training for nearly all, so everyone knows how to operate a firearm (I'm all for firearm safety classes in schools, personally.)

As for guninformation.org, it's absolute bullshit. My personal favorites? Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime: Half-truth. Private ownership of Ak's by his soldiers was VERY common. Everyone else had nothing. I also enjoyed their claim that DC's gun ban saved lives (bullshit. DC was, for a long time, one of the most violent crime- prone areas in the country). I enjoyed even more their figure 1.2, the British Crime Survey, which, did, in fact, report crimes decreasing. Sadly, less than 30% of the precincts actually turn in the damn paperwork for any given year (all countries have this problem, to be fair. Even the US only gets about 70% of UCR's), and none of these number include the dark figure of crime (basically, theoretically crime is double what we see, even worse with crimes like rape) With a less than 1/3 showing, it would look like crime was on the decline. With the Peele Center's statistics, it looks a lot different.

Actually, I compete in 3 gun competitions, which require a pistol, a semi-automatic magazine fed rifle, and a shotgun. My pistol of choice is still available under this ban (colt 1911 single-stack, 7 round or 8 rounds mag), my rifle is not (M14 with 20 round mags) and my shotgun is already covered under NFA, it's a Class 3 destructive device (or, in layman's terms, a short barreled shotgun).

Of course, I'm always prepared for world war z; I don't want to be on a rooftop in the middle of nowhere with an uzi and a shotgun as the best hope for my survival. Although I'll take a springfield 1911 doublestack anytime.

That is the bit that makes the 'assualt weapon' ban such a bad piece of legislation.

That, and it is so specific about the criteria that all the manufacturers made minor changes to get around the ban years ago. It did little to nothing about reducing the types of firearms available for purchace.

Thanks. Although I'm sure that our opinions on the 2nd amendment are different I'd say that since it is an outright ban, whether or not it fits within my beliefs of what the 2nd amendment means, particularly since I have no inherent issues with semi-automatic weapons, that it’s not worth arguing over since it’ll just come down to a matter of interpretation.

As a Kansas resident and a KU alumni, Sebelius' own alma mater, I have a great deal of respect for her. While she did make those remarks what she was intending was an education of parents on the adult nature of many video games. She recognizes that games are an entertainment medium like movies, books, and music.

If games are to be considered a serious form of entertainment, we have to admit that some of them are violent and graphic just like any other form of entertainment. What she proposed was ultimately education, but she did offer backing of a game law that the state house put forword. The bill made sense, in that games were going to be held to the same standards as other forms of entertainment in the state of Kansas.

I have also worked at a Hastings in Kansas. Kind of like a Borders mixed with a Blockbuster, the store had no interest whatsoever in preventing a ten-year old kid from buying GTA. I actually got in trouble once because I wouldn't sell a kid GTA: Vice City. Hastings is a major chain in Kansas and hasn't been targeted like EB Games or other larger stores.

I would support Kathleen Sebelius in whatever position she is nominated for and I am a hardcore gamer who constantly reads this site. I couldn't ask for a better governor who considers everyone's opinions and rights in every situation.

Apparently, you missed out on the right to free speech without government regulation, save in certain instances (and honestly, I think free speech covers inflammatory speech and obscene speech too, just not things like yelling 'fire' in a movie theater'. Of course, you did graduate from KU and yet seem to not know that the correct term for referring to yourself is alumnus or alumnae (alumnus is male, alumnae female), so I'm glad that worked out so well for you, and I'm sure we can expect the same from another spectacular Obama Nominee.

Hell, maybe she'll even work out as well as Eric Holder, who said that the reason we should reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban is that MEXICO is having trouble with automatic weapons and grenades being used in drug lords' firefights. Wouldn't that be super?

So you think allowing assault weapons to fuel a civil war in a neighboring country is just peachy? What do you think will happen when the drugs mafia win the war with the Mexican Government? Which county will suffer the most after Mexico? Where do you think the incredibly violent MEXICAN gangs in the southern states come from? Maybe you should've asked yourself these questions before you start being insulted by Holder trying to stop the implosion of a neighboring country.

Actually, the weapons used in this 'civil war' aren't even covered under the assault weapons ban. Hand Grenades? Automatic Weapons? Those are left overs from the things sent to Contras, not new weapons smuggled in.

Personally, I think the people in border towns should get tax credit for buying a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle (often called an 'assault rifle'. It's the best thing they have to compete against firearms stolen and bribed from members of the mexican army and police.

Which brings me to my next point; all the years Mexico had the chance to deal with this and didn't. Sure, I'm willing to believe that someone was being bribed to look the other way, but I don't see how this is our problem because THEY put it off until it became a big deal. If they want help, I see nothing wrong with lending them some of our military might to crush the drug lords, but Eric Holder's going about it wrong, and he knows it. This isn't a solution, its just a justification based on BULLSHIT.

And Eric Holder either A) is aware that this will not help the problem because the weapons the Mexican government is struggling against aren't even covered or B) is a moron. Either way, he's a worthless person.

So you won't to make sure everyone citizen becomes a soldier? There is a reason modern countries have police forces and armies. You have to cut the cartels of, that can't happen if you try to cause a war between the people and the criminals. You have to attack the roots, the roots lie in Mexico. There lies your main problem: because Mexico hasn't dealt with this problem before, they somehow shouldn't be helped anymore? And it is a giant problem when your neighboring erupts in civil war (or something like it). And lending military might? Yeah right, like the armed forces aren't already fighting in two other conflicts.

Second problem: You assume Mexico could've dealt with the mafia before. Mexico has a whole bunch of problems, the mafia just recently became the main problem. You oversimplify the conflict. Wich brings me to my question: How are you so sure the cartels only use contra weapons? And what about the gangs operating in the southern cities (and to a lesser extend, in the West Coast)? They don't have to bring their own weapons, they buy them there.

I want to make sure EVERY LAW ABIDING AMERICAN can defend themselves. The police aren't omnipresent, and they don't HAVE to help you. They can choose to let you die, and the Supreme Court has held this up before. Letting people be slaughtered by cartels in America because they can't have a firearm is moronic. I agree, attack the roots. If Mexico asks, I'm all for sending them some troops for assistance, a few Special Forces teams, hell, even Blackwater (or Xe. Whatever you want to call it). You seem to be of the opinion that we have no troops to spare; that is incorrect. We have many brigades that have not been mobilized to Iraq, and a few companies would be more than enough to deal with Mexico's drug cartel.

Mexico has had twenty years where, in fact, the mafia was a big problem, and a growing problem. They let what was once a small problem blossom into a gigantic organization that can operate without secrecy. Why? Well, there were the bribes, of course. Then there was the idea that they could put it off until tomorrow.

How am I so sure they're only using Contra weapons? Because weapons manufacturers don't send Class III weapons to just anyone, because the average American can't even get a hold of a class III weapon for less than 8,000 dollars, because there have been a LOT of old M4's stamped 'US MILITARY' floating around since we gave them to the contra, because we also sent the Contra HAND GRENADES (WHICH CITIZENS CANNOT BUY), and because the weapons covered by the assault weapons ban aren't fully automatic, which is what Mexico is having a lot of problems with. As for gangs in the west coast and south, they use either ilegally gotten pistols or foreign (smuggled) Ak's which they take to Mexico. If you really want those dealt with, go after people who bought the pistols and then sold them (it happens occasionally) and go after Lebanon, a country that has fueled conflicts around the world for years. Taking away the right of Law abiding citizens to bear arms does nothing to resolve this problem.

And what makes you thinks cartels just randomly slaughter law-abiding citizens? A few companies aren't enough to deal with the cartels. CARTELS, plural. One third of the Mexican armed forces is mobilized and has de facto occupied several cities. Do you really think this is will be a quick and clean war? This is a asymmetrical conflict just like in Colombia. It doesn't lend itself for a quick fix.

The idea they could put it off till tomorrow? Do you really think they were to lazy to deal with them? Of course not, there were other problems. And Mexico has been fighting them from the beginning. Of course there were bribes, but the Mexican government didn't ignore the cartels.

And Lebanon? that is completely retarded. First of, the US is in no shape to "take on" another country. Secondly, Lebanon does not fuel conflict as such, they are still involved in a huge internal conflict. Are you sure you meant Lebanon?

Cartels don't randomly slaughter law-abiding citizens. They pick out the citizens who speak out against them, who ask for police help,

A few companies are more than capable of dealing with these cartels. Yes, I know there are plural. Once again, Doctor of Criminology. And Sociology too, actually. Mobilize a company out of Bragg and it'll be over in a few months. Quick? Yes. Clean? No.

They didn't want to deal with it for a couple reasons. One of the HUGE reasons was that the Mexican government has always been very receptive to bribes. They didn't do much to the cartels at all for 20 years, and now we're seeing what it sewed.

Lebanon is actually a major arms dealer, as is some European country (up by Russia), plus Nicaragua and El Salvador. They actually used to have big 'shows' where they sold to African war lords (think Lord of War or whatever it was called, Nicholas Cage was in it.

And once again, ONE AK being traced to some dingy little store doesn't mean that the 6000 weapons are from America. It means one group brought an AK back. If they're from the US, then they're not fully automatic, which makes the fact that the Mexican police can't take them all the more hilarious.

Games are already held to the same standard as other media, none. Film, print and music all have voluntary enforcement of their ratings or lack there of. So why should games be held to a higher standard. That is what the Kansas law would have done.

I don't think anyone in the games industry denies that some games are violent or graphic. That is not what this is about. This is about whether the government should regulate free speech.

"The bill made sense, in that games were going to be held to the same standards as other forms of entertainment in the state of Kansas."

There are no laws barring the sale of any other forms of entertainment media to minors in any state or elsewhere in the U.S.A. except porn because minors (rightfully so IMHO) have First Amendment rights and porn falls under obscenity laws which according to the Supreme Court have no constitutional protection. Although i must say that IMO obscenity laws are all bunk and have no basis whatsoever in the constitution as with any other law that would ban speech on the sole basis of offensiveness.

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

I don't know how you can get off the hook by saying 'oh, I must have forgotten your 140,000 dollars, let me pay you now' and still be fine. That's not a mistake, that's called 'I figured I didn't have to pay taxes because I was going to get away with it, but once I got nominated and people dug around, I got fucked'.

Seriously, if one of us 'forgot', we'd be audited for the next five years.

Well, the IRS does tend to be a bit more forgiving when you go to them and say, I owe you money, than the other way around. We'll see if that forgivness includes not being audited for the next few years or not.

As I recall what happened for the first two that had tax problems, after Obama nominated them, they filed amended returns and paid up. Then during the hearings the fact that they'd needed to file amended returns came up. Filing an amended return in this case basically amounted to them telling the IRS that they didn't pay on some income and would need to be paying up. That they did so just before the hearings doesn't reflect much better on them than if they hadn't filed/paid at the time of the hearings.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

ZippyDSMlee: .....win8 hates any left over hidden install partitions from other version of windows....only waste 5 hours finding that out...its ahrder than you think keeping up with 4 or 5 HDDS......03/03/2015 - 4:44am

Matthew Wilson: I am going to pax east, any games you guys want me to check out?03/02/2015 - 11:23pm

ZippyDSMlee: No one remembers the days of Cinemagic and Cynergy eh? :P, meh even MGS is getting to film like....03/02/2015 - 8:44pm

MechaTama31: I was about to get all defensive about liking Metal Gear Solid, but then I saw that he was talking about "cinematic" as a euphemism for "crappy framerate".03/02/2015 - 8:29pm

prh99: Just replace cinematic with the appropriate synonym for poo and you'll have gist of any press release.03/02/2015 - 5:34pm

Monte: Though from a business side, i would agree with the article. While it would be smarter for developers to slow down, you can't expect EA, Activision or ubisoft to do something like that. Nintnedo's gotta get the third party back.02/28/2015 - 4:36pm

Monte: Though it does also help that nintendo's more colorful style is a lot less reliant on graphics than more realistic games. Wind Waker is over 10 years old and still looks good for its age.02/28/2015 - 4:33pm

Monte: With the Wii, nintnedo had the right idea. Hold back on shiny graphics and focus on the gameplay experience. Unfortunatly everyone else keeps pushing for newer graphics and it matters less and less each generation. I can barely notice the difference02/28/2015 - 4:29pm

Monte: ON third party developers; i kinda think they should slow down to nintendo's pace. They bemoan the rising costs of AAA gaming, but then constantly push for the best graphics which is makes up a lot of those costs. Be easier to afford if they held back02/28/2015 - 4:27pm

Matthew Wilson: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/28/the-world-is-nintendos-if-only-theyd-take-it/ I think this is a interesting op-ed, but yeah it kind of is stating the obvious.02/28/2015 - 2:52pm